A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Meeting Room - CHVLC - Cherry Hinton Village Leisure Centre, Colville Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge, CB1 9EJ. View directions

Contact: James Goddard  Committee Manager

Items
No. Item

17/1/SAC

Welcome, Introduction and Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillor McPherson (Committee Member) and Joel Carré, Head of Streets and Open Spaces (Lead Officer).

17/2/SAC

Election of Chair and Vice Chair - SAC

Minutes:

The Committee Manager took the Chair whilst the South Area Committee elected a Chair.

 

Councillor Pippas proposed, and Councillor Moore seconded, the nomination of Councillor O’Connell as Chair.

 

Councillor Dryden proposed, and Councillor Ashton seconded, the nomination of Councillor McPherson as Chair.

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) that Councillor O’Connell be Chair for the ensuing year.

 

Resolved (by 2 votes to 0) that Councillor McPherson be Chair for the ensuing year.

 

Councillor O’Connell assumed the Chair from the Committee Manager at this point.

 

Councillor Adey proposed, and Councillor Page-Croft seconded, the nomination of Councillor Moore as Vice Chair.

 

Councillor Dryden proposed, and Councillor Ashton seconded, the nomination of Councillor McPherson as Vice Chair.

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) that Councillor Moore be Vice Chair.

 

Resolved (by 2 votes to 0) that Councillor McPherson be Vice Chair.

 

Councillor Moore assumed the Vice Chair for the ensuing year.

17/3/SAC

Declarations of Interest

Members of the committee are asked to declare any interests in the items on the agenda. In the case of any doubt, the advice of the Monitoring Officer should be sought before the meeting.

Minutes:

Name

Item

Interest

Councillor Ashton

17/08/SAC

Personal - Chair of Cherry Hinton Residents Association

 

17/4/SAC

Minutes pdf icon PDF 404 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 24 April 2017.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 April 2017 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

17/5/SAC

Matters and Actions Arising from the Minutes pdf icon PDF 116 KB

Committee Action Sheet from last meeting attached.

Minutes:

ACTION

LEAD OFFICER/

MEMBER

TIMESCALE

PROGRESS

Addenbrooke's Station

 

John Laing to be invited to

a future meeting of SAC

 

 

Joel Carré

 

 

 

24/04/17

 

 

24/04/17

Officers advised no further update available at present

 

17/07/17

Further briefing update requested but John Laing, the scheme promoter, has advised that there isn’t any progress to report at this stage. John Laing to be invited to a future meeting of SAC.

Environmental Reports

 

In discussion, members

 

a.  recalled that, at the last meeting, a problem had been identified with bins being left out on pavements in Anstey Way, and suggested that, despite the present report proposing to drop this as a priority, the Anstey way issues should continue to be a priority

b.  expressed the belief that, although the leaving of bins on streets had been decriminalised, social housing tenants were required not to leave bins on pavements, but in designated bin areas.  The Chair undertook to write to the Operations Manager to ask her to check what the relevant rules for social housing tenants were.

 

 

 

 

Cllr Pippas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17/07/17

 

 

 

 

 

 

a.  Bins at Anstey Way – comments from previous report – “Anstey Way – This issue was related to the leaving of bins on pavements only. The powers for bins left on the street was decriminalised by central government. Due to the bin changeover date this work has been postponed until the next period, and the completion of this area of work. Officers suggest this is removed as a priority, but will be undertaken over the coming months”. As the bin collections are still not 100% I have not instructed an officer to undertake any work in this area and do not think we should at the present time. The rules for bins apply to all properties regardless of social or private. However should we start to enforce this civil matter we will require a larger team due to the volume of work (and it cannot be met by the enforcement team even with support from the rangers).

b.  See report.

 

Full details of the above will be included in the report for SAC which is due on 17 July.

 

Environment Reports are now presented at alternative area committees (alternate to the Police schedule).

Environmental Report 

 

Wendy Young undertook to take away points regarding making the point of contact to enquire about abandoned bicycles simpler and easier to access.  Matter to be pursued and brought back to SAC.

 

 

Wendy Young

 

 

17/07/17

 

 

Bicycles action not progressed as there have been other priorities. Officers have improved our website, social media and responses to customers in regards to abandoned bicycles. Development of a policy is being looked at for later this year

 

17/6/SAC

Open Forum

Refer to the ‘Information for the Public’ section for rules on speaking.

Minutes:

Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below.

 

Member of the public raised the following issues about road works on Hills Road and Addenbrooke’s roundabout

1a.  Rosamond McKitterick:

  i.  Expressed concern about development of the medical site.

  ii.  Queried why residents were not properly consulted before planning/work started.

  iii.  Queried why work was going ahead when residents were not consulted.

 

1b.  Dara Morefield:

  i.  Addenbrooke’s roundabout was discussed at SAC in February 2015.

  ii.  Residents were surprised that the current design went ahead despite concerns expressed eg shared pedestrian and cyclist pavement use.

  iii.  It was understood that work being undertaken was temporary and would be replaced by City Deal work in future.

  iv.  Queried why work was going ahead given the above issues.

 

Councillor Moore said:

  i.  SAC had no formal planning role, this was the responsibility of the Planning Committee.

  ii.  A roundabout was proposed for safer pedestrian/cyclist access to Addenbrooke’s on a gyratory road. The design was seen as pragmatic but not ideal. It was generally accepted that shared pedestrian/cyclist pavement use was not appropriate when disabled people used it, so the scheme would be replaced in future.

  iii.  Under the planning system, projects could go ahead in a modular fashion (without being joined up). The preferred bidder could implement schemes as they wished within planning permission/criteria, which led to a piecemeal approach.

  iv.  The County Council chose to implement the Addenbrooke’s planning application and roundabout work at the same time to give access to a major site.

  v.  Feedback was generally good when the roundabout was first implemented, but negative feedback had been received more recently due to the incremental process.

 

Councillor Pippas said he had received a lot of feedback from residents about access to Addenbrooke’s. It was hoped the roundabout would give them better access through controlled crossings.

 

2a.  Rosamond McKitterick stated she understood the case for the roundabout but had concerns about pedestrian/cyclist shared pavement use due to anti-social behavior by cyclists.

 

Councillor Moore said it was hard to control which direction people cycled in, so the aim was to make routes as safe as possible for users. Measures to control where cyclists go could cause safety issues eg barriers to control direction of travel. Another aspect of the project was to make routes safer for disabled people.

 

Councillor Ashton expressed frustration that the City had to work jointly with the County Council on highways projects as this lessened control. City and County Council priorities could sometimes differ. The intention was to get County council representatives to attend SAC in future at early stages of projects so residents could feedback sooner.

 

2b.  Dara Morefield said that residents were frustrated at a perceived lack of consultation which led to a feeling that “stuff was done to them, not for them”.

 

Councillor Moore said he had talked to residents but highways project commencement dates were out of City Council hands.

 

3.  Andrew Roberts read a statement on behalf of Trumpington Residents’ Association expressing concerns about the reduction of buses and rerouting of the Citi 7 & Service 26/27 buses. Residents had approached Stagecoach but were unhappy with the response.

 

4.  Kerry Galloway expressed concern about the reduction of buses and bus services. People would:

  i.  Have to walk to bus stops before they could travel.

  ii.  Have to use multiple buses for the same (original) journey as route lengths have reduced.

  iii.  Find it more difficult to travel around the city and commute in/out. This would discourage people from using public transport. Car journeys should be discouraged for environmental reasons.

 

5.  Gloria Schumperli expressed concern about the reduction of buses and bus services. Particularly Service 17.

  i.  Many residents were concerned.

  ii.  Further housing developments were being built, so demand for bus services may grow.

  iii.  People had to walk for up to 15 minutes to find a bus stop before they could travel.

  iv.  There had been no notification/consultation on bus service reduction. Residents wanted the (full) services re-instated. Referred to a petition regarding this. A number of people had to use taxis to go shopping, which had a dramatic impact on low income families.

 

Members responded:

  i.  Bus service proposals were detrimental to a lot of people in the South Area of the city.

  ii.  Suggested that Stagecoach was more interested in profit than service provision, so routes were adjusted to facilitate this.

  iii.  Bus services were deregulated so it was within the remit of providers to set routes. Councillors had limited influence.

  iv.  Shorter travel routes meant that people would have to change buses in future to do the same route as they would have done in the past.

  v.  People would find it more difficult to travel around the city and commute in/out.

  vi.  Buses could be caught in congestion, which affected service times.

  vii.  The County Council had talked to Stagecoach and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Mayor to try and mitigate the impact of service reduction.

  viii.  Roads had no more capacity so there was a need to ration who could use them to improve the environment. Buses used diesel, there was pressure not to bring them into the city because of the effect on air quality.

  ix.  An integrated transport network was required. In the long term this could only be implemented through the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Mayor who had the mandate and resources to implement such a scheme. In the short term councillors could pass residents’ feedback onto the County Council and Stagecoach.

 

6.  A member of the public said it was the wrong commercial decision to stop Park&Ride buses using the Anstey Way stop. Park&Ride buses were now too full to take on new passengers until the end of their journeys.

 

7.  A member of the public asked for:

  i.  One ticket to cover all services.

  ii.  Better service information.

  iii.  The County Council to subsidise bus services otherwise people would be socially isolated.

 

Councillor Crawford said the County Council needed a business case to subsidise bus services before it could approve funding. It had very limited resources already.

 

Councillor Pippas said the County Council had cut funding for 19 to 40 children’s centres due to budget cuts. In response to Ms Schumperli’s petition point, 3,000 signatures were required to get a debate by a County Council committee.

 

ACTION: In response to points from members of the public and committee regarding bus services Councillor O’Connell undertook to:

a)  Write to the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough regarding funding for joined up services / integrated public transport network.

b)  Liaise with the County Council regarding a business case for bus route subsidies.

c)  Liaise with Stagecoach about service provision.

17/7/SAC

Environmental Report - SAC pdf icon PDF 939 KB

Minutes:

The Committee received a report from the Operations Manager – Community Engagement and Enforcement.

 

The report outlined an overview of City Council Refuse and Environment and Streets and Open Spaces service activity relating to the geographical area served by the South Area Committee.  The report identified the reactive and proactive service actions undertaken in the previous quarter, including the requested priority targets, and reported back on the recommended issues and associated actions. It also included key officer contacts for the reporting of waste and refuse and public realm issues.

 

Number

Priority details

1

Early morning, daytime and weekend patrols for dog fouling on Cherry Hinton Recreation Ground, Trumpington Recreation Ground and Cherry Hinton Hall.

2

Enforcement targeted approach to areas where Addenbrookes site joins residential areas such as Hills Road and Red Cross Lane and to work with Addenbrookes to work towards the bus station area being cleaned up.

3

Enforcement to work with the County Council, against utilities and companies that damage the verge on Mowbray and Fendon Road.

4

Enforcement joint working and patrols to deal with littering from students of Long Road Sixth Form in the areas of Long Road and Sedley Taylor Road.

5

Enforcement patrols to deal with litter, abandoned vehiclesand fly tipping in and around Teversham Drift

6

Enforcement action to deal with bins left on pavements in Anstey Way.

 

Number

New Priorities

7

Enforcement patrols to tackle fly tipping at the Anstey Way recycling centre

 

The Committee discussed the following issues:

  i.  Vehicles that were for sale in the Fulbourn Road layby had now moved to the grass area near Kwikfit.

  ii.  Bins kept on the street in Anstey Way due to lack of storage area. Some properties were owned by the Council and some were in private ownership.

 

ACTION: Wendy Young undertook to ask Sandra Farmer to liaise with Councillor Avery regarding bin storage space for City Homes properties on Anstey Way. Bins are currently left on the pavement.

 

  iii.  Travellers arrived at Cherry Hinton Recreation Ground on Sunday July 16th. On Monday 17th July officers from Streets and Open Spaces undertook initial Welfare Assessments on the site and instructed the City Council’s legal team to start proceedings to re-possess the land. This process had a number of stages to obtain a court order for the eviction and usually took between 10 and 14 days.

  iv.  Welcomed discarded cigarette butt enforcement action.

  v.  The grass cutting operative continued to run over litter (such as bottles) left on the grass in Mowbray Road rather than removing them before cutting. Residents were concerned about resulting safety issues and blocked drains.

  vi.  Litter dumped in the Hartington Grove church gate.

 vii.  Gunhild Way:

a.  Litter dropped by parents on the way to Queen Emma School.

b.  Obstacles put on grass verges to prevent parking. These are sometime run over by lawn mowers.

viii.  Litter dropped by Netherhall and St Bede pupils.

  ix.  Graffiti and litter on Holbrook Road near Homerton Children Centre.

  x.  Suggestions for locations for additional bins in Trumpington would be forwarded to the Operations Manager post meeting.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Operations Manager – Community Engagement and Enforcement said the following:

  i.  Would consider the idea for signs to say “(name) caught here” in different locations where cigarette butts had been discarded. Similar in principle to the “we’re watching you” anti-dog fouling signs.

  ii.  Would liaise with Anglian Water where drains were blocked by detritus from roads.

  iii.  The enforcement team would not remove stones from Gunhild Way verges, but would report them to the County Council as the responsibility for obstructions on the public highway was within their remit and not the City Council. 

  iv.  There was no single point where people could collect lost bikes from. Options were being reviewed for organisations to better share data on lost property they had collected.

 

Following discussion, Members unanimously resolved to approve priorities for action as amended above.

17/8/SAC

S106 Funding Allocations - Update pdf icon PDF 19 KB

Minutes:

The Committee received a report from the Urban Growth Project Manager.

 

The report outlined that its meeting on 24 April 2017, the South Area Committee identified its latest priorities for the use of available S106 contributions for which the Area Committee had devolved decision-making powers, in line with the first recommendation within the S106 report. Business cases for those prioritised projects would be developed, as appropriate, so that projects which passed this project appraisal stage could then be implemented. The Area Committee would be kept informed of progress.

 

That April 2017 report also included a second recommendation to reverse decisions on two projects previously prioritised in the 2015/16 S106 funding round, which were not now in a position to proceed. Given the focus of discussion at the 24 April meeting on the 2016/17 priority-setting round, it was not clear that the Area Committee explicitly made a decision on that second recommendation. The purpose of this follow-up report was, therefore, to seek clarification of this specific point. It featured relevant extracts from the April 2017 report.

 

The Urban Growth Project Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

  i.  There was no specific Cherry Hinton Hub proposal in the 2015/16 s106 round. SAC had ringfenced some funding for the future in case a project came forward eg Cherry Hinton Library.

  ii.  S106 regulations stipulated that funding was used to mitigate the impact of developments so funding from the area did not have to be spent in the same ward.

  iii.  The next round for s106 funding for community facilities would happen later in 2017 after the strategic review.

 

Following discussion, Members unanimously resolvedto reverse those decisions made by the Area Committee in the 2015/16 S106 funding round which prioritised the following two proposals:

  i.  Accordia junior ‘fit kit’ (allocated £15,000 of (play) ‘provision for children and teenagers’ S106 contributions) and

  ii.  St Paul’s Primary School community facility improvements (allocated £40,000 of ‘community facilities’ S106 contributions).